America Approves Limits to Liberties

The Detroit News ^ | September 16, 2001 | Cameron McWhirter

[riley1992]

Those limits to liberties are acceptable to Metro Detroiters and most other Americans. A Detroit News poll Thursday found that 88 percent of Metro Detroiters are willing to "accept restrictions on movements such as metal detectors and military personnel in public places" to increase the nation's security from terrorist attacks.

[riley1992]

"We are in a new world," declared Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, the House minority leader. He told Reuter last week that "we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties. But we are not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."

You just completely contradicted yourself in the same breath, you idiot.

[riley1992]

Cynthia Vespa, 35, of Harrison Township is ready to accept anything that will make her three children more secure.

And so it begins.

[riverrunner]

We have to do it for the children. Where have we heard this before.

[captnemo1]

But then again, you knew that as soon as the second plane hit didn't you.
Sigh....

[ResistorSister]

You know, we counted on those folks in congress that I believe are for the most part idiots, to keep our country safe. They were not able to do it.

We better start telling those clowns in the Federal government that we do not want them making wide-sweeping security laws against American's rights. We want them to protect this country's borders. But we will protect our states, cities, and towns.

[wysiwyg]

Freep this poll.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Sobering.

[ingeborg]

Let's see, I can think of a whole list of things that need to be curbed. Those subwoofers that create a fog of brain-deadening noise so that you cannot listen for danger . . .

[riley1992]

I suspected but held out some faint hope that not all would cede so quickly. Once again, I have been shown the error of my ways.

[smokeyb]

If you have resistance to what you want, you give them a reason to want it. Wasn't this convenient !

[borisbob69]

At first I was amazed at the sudden about face by the libs and their intense interest in being non-partisan. Then it dawned on me Duh! this will allow them to further their agenda of control.

[gore3000]

The only thing they have proposed for the airlines that could have stopped this is armed guards in every plane. Every other measure being proposed would not have done anything to stop this. They apparently had legitimate ids, they did not have guns, even if they had not allowed any metal onboard, knives can be made of almost anything.

Where there is a will there is a way. We know that terrorism requires the support of a government to finance it, train the terrorists, get them their weapons, pick possible targets, and get them the information they need for their evil deeds. We need to get rid of ALL the governments that support terrorism. Destroying our freedoms will not stop this.

[riley1992]

The only thing they have proposed for the airlines that could have stopped this is armed guards in every plane.

I said this on another thread. I cannot comprehend the stupidity of the thinking that says "I will trust a man to fly me 35,000 feet into the air in mega tons of steel but will not trust that same man with a fire arm." Unbelievably idiotic.

Destroying our freedoms will not stop this.

We will never completely rid the world of terrorists. Having said that, we need to annihilate the ones we know about, not our freedoms.

[riley1992]

They will play into the fear of the weak now just as they always have.

[NebraskaPatriot]

Speaking of limiting liberties...can we make it illegal to burn the Flag?

[Dahoser]

One thing we need to distinguish between is erosion of our civil liberties versus erosion of the convenience in attending entertainment events, etc., because if we do not, we surely shall lose our civil liberties. Those who wish to take them away want us to complain about going through a metal detector at Yankee Stadium so they can loudly proclaim how no one has the right to watch a baseball game while they quietly move to erase protections from searches and seizures, and abridgement of speech.

[Caipirabob]

There are compromises that you make for your nation in times of war in order to preserve and pass on such rights and liberties to the next generation. Many us of have never been subjected to such times so this may seem a fearful change, but I see it as part of the sacrifices we need to make in order to wage and win a war. If we begin to see a siege mentality kick in, then we need to become concern, for such abuse of civil rights without a state of war is intolerable and America will simply consume itself from within. Otherwise I see this as simply part of the sacrifices we need to make to save the nation and the ideals upon which America was founded for the next generation. We've had it so good for so long that such a sacrifice may be offensive to some in this generation, but I see it as no more than those who laid down their lives in service to our nation to save it for us to enjoy.

[riley1992]

I do not want it to be illegal to burn the flag. As much as I detest the act, it should not be made illegal.

[The Raven]

I'd give some liberties to Bush - except for one thing. I trust him. In the future, we may have Hillary (although her chances are slimmer, now) or who knows what kind of future leader we may have.

[E.G.C.]

Freeped and bumped. I'm surprised they didn't ask if people should be required to take armed brownshirts into their homes.